Obama Ignoring Arkansas

The New York Times reports that Sen. Barack Obama has no campaign offices in Arkansas and hasn't visited the state since 2006. Even though,

Arkansas has a Democratic governor, an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature, two Democratic United States senators and three Democratic Congressional representatives out of four.

The Democratic presidential primary here drew 80,000 more voters than the Republican one. And though the state voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004, the two previous elections went handily to its native son, Bill Clinton.

What's up with this? Is it a sign that other than the southern states with large African American populations like North Carolina, Georgia and Virginia, he's not even going to try to win southern rural voters? [More...]

But in the red-bloc South, the campaign has begun a push only in Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. It has offices in several Republican-leaning states that have three electoral votes to Arkansas’s six, leaving his supporters in this state to wonder, why not here?

The likely answer:

In Arkansas, unlike other Southern states, Democrats have maintained dominance by keeping white, conservative, rural voters — the ones that need the most convincing by Mr. Obama — in the fold. Arkansas’s population is whiter than the rest of the South; it is only 16 percent black, compared with 30 percent in Georgia and 21 percent in North Carolina. Its voters are older and less educated and include fewer transplants from outside the South. Virginia has elected a black governor; Arkansas has never elected a black candidate to statewide office.

I think Obama should be trying harder, not ignoring the rural southern states. Instead, he seems to be focusing on smaller states, particularly in the West, with fewer electoral votes. I don't think Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico propel him to victory -- not without Ohio, Michigan and Florida, none of which are firmly in his camp.

Arkansas could make a difference. He has paid staff in Louisiana which will never go blue.

What about his voter registration drive in all 50 states, the one he's been raising money for along with the DNC. Shouldn't some major attention be paid to registering Arkansas voters? Apparently not.

“Arkansas is a state where persuasion, I think, is going to be a larger factor than a massive registration program,” Mr. Carson said.

Dems in Arkansas think differently:

“In the past, it’s always been going out and encouraging and begging people to register to vote,” said Tracy Steele of North Little Rock, the majority leader of the State Senate, who added that he was planning a statewide voter registration drive without waiting for the Obama campaign. “More than ever, I receive calls from people wondering, ‘Where can I register, how can I early-vote?’ ”

Obama's path to victory in the primaries was to focus on the smaller caucus states. While it worked in getting him the nomination, I have doubts that strategy will work in November when it's all about electoral votes.

< Report: Obama Tells Wesley Clark "No Thanks" | Joe Biden Leaves for Georgia >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Arkansas is a waste of money for him (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:04:51 PM EST
    just like Georgia.

    The state is hospitable to local Democrats, but it's out of reach for Obama. It's the West Virginia of the South.

    If he put Hillary on the ticket, that would be a different story.

    South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:08:50 PM EST
    were also out of reach and he went there.

    If he's raising money with the DNC for a 50 state voter registration drive, shouldn't it be all 50 states, not just those he might win in this election? There's no forward thinking in that.


    Plus, he could actually HURT dems down the ticket (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:11:06 PM EST
    in places in Arkansas.

    Now that's interesting (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:05:37 PM EST
    WHY would such a STRONG candidate as Barack Obama hurt FELLOW Dems running for office in an election year that should be a "thumpin'" for the R's?

    Wasn't it supposed to be the other way (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:09:18 PM EST
    around during the primary? I'm pretty sure I remeber a whole bunch of folks saying that Barack Obama could carry downticket Dems.

    AND (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:11:38 PM EST
    it was Senator Obama himself who said, "The people who voted for her would vote for me, but I doubt that the people that vote for me will vote for her."

    Does that apply to the 50 state strategy as well?

    Audacity...thy name is Obama.


    This Quote (none / 0) (#84)
    by IzikLA on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:22:09 PM EST
    Was the moment I started to dislike him.  I am voting for him, but this was the start of something that I am having a hard time getting back, and that is respect.  I had it for him at the '04 convention and it has been lost.

    I was surprised that Hillary earned way more respect from me than I ever anticipated by the end of the Primaries.  I'm still waiting on Obama.


    me too! (none / 0) (#96)
    by ohmercy on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:59:51 AM EST
    and the Hillary is  polarizing meme.
    I actually was supporting HIM... but I kept getting irked by his passibve aggressive attacks. These two things really pissed me off, then the JJ. Jr. "katrina tears" crap shoved me over the edge.
    Once they hit bill with racism and the MLK/LBJ?geraldine ferraro... well, I was already backing out the door, then I turned around and ran.

    I was thinking of the Ferraro thing today. O said at one point that if he wasn't black he'd be just another jr. senator so in effect his race was working for him.

    Now isn't that what Ferraro said?

    this crap is aggravating me.
    Gotta go to sleep.
    I watched the faith forum and felt myself kind of liking him again, feeling like, OK, I can vote for him even if I disagree. He's thoughtful, thinks about what he says... and compassion/least of these is a theme I feel we need more than anything else in this country/world.

    then I look at HuffPo and see thaqt Clark isn't invited to the convention and read all the trash being written about Hillary and I just get sick again.

    nighty night.


    It's regional (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:08:10 PM EST
    He could really hurt in certain parts of PA and OH, even if he wins statewide.

    One word (none / 0) (#57)
    by Claw on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:56:56 PM EST

    Might want to check out (none / 0) (#58)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:08:37 PM EST
    the mayors of major cities.

    Like Columbus, OH.  State Capitol.  Some guy with a (D) behind his name.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#59)
    by Claw on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:12:12 PM EST
    The mayor of atlanta is AA.  We're talking about Arkansas, right?

    I thought we were talking (none / 0) (#66)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:24:32 PM EST
    about voters.  Ohio has plenty of both types, AA and non-AA and manages to elect both types to office.

    Because... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Nevart on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:16:27 PM EST
    Because he's black.  In states like Ark, where the black population isn't enough to put him over the top, but big enough to freak out some of the white folk, Obama doesn't do so well.  But in places like Iowa, or Montana or the Dakotas (for example), he does just fine.  All the border states are off the table because...let's be honest here...because the number of white racists outnumbers the number of blacks.  In a place like NC, however, there are enough blacks to possibly cancel out the white racist vote and put him over the top.  

    Not that he will need NC.  Despite all the despair I read on this site, I think Obama's on the road to a 300+ electoral vote victory.


    i have to tell you i haven't seen the obama (none / 0) (#90)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:18:29 AM EST
    campaign make one really good move since the primaries ended. what can they be thinking?

    The Chairman of the Arkansas (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:56:38 PM EST
    Dem party who was slain the other day did not share your view according to many reports.

    I am suspicious of this story especially given the Chairman's death this week - he is not around to speak up and verify or refute this story.


    There's no danger to down ticket dems (none / 0) (#103)
    by Omaya on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:14:42 PM EST
    as they're all running unopposed.

    I have to say though that this article was more ill-timed than anything else as an Arkansas state director just got to down when our party chairman was shot and so her plans were delayed.


    The Obama Victory Fund (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:25:33 PM EST
    is his joint fundraising agreement with the DNC. (Registration statement here.)It allows people to contribute $14,250 per person. That's the price of attending one of these dinners with Obama. I think the monies taken in should go to their intended goal and benefit the party now and in the future. He should spend his campaign money how he wants but this is DNC money too and I think the voter registration drive should be implemented in all 50 states, not just those Obama might win.

    Under their agreement, the Obama campaign will pocket every individual contribution up to $4,600, which is the maximum a candidate can receive from individuals. The DNC will get any amount above that figure, up to $28,500.

    Here's the invitation for one tomorrow night in San Francisco:

    Barack Obama will return to the Bay Area in August for an event benefiting the Obama Victory Fund.

    Sunday, August 17, 2008
    4:30 pm - Dinner
    5:30 pm - Reception

    $2,300 per person; $4,600 per person for VIP seating

    $28,500 per couple or $14,250 per person

    Fairmont Hotel
    950 Mason Street
    San Francisco, CA

    That $28K (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:34:50 PM EST
    contribution to a political candidate just makes me sick...  There are families that could live for a year on that kind of money, yet our society wants to throw it at politicians.

    I'm sorry if I'm off-topic, but seeing how much money the wealthy are throwing at these people really strikes me as wrong.    


    I would be very happy (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:45:31 PM EST
    if I made $28,000.

    That amount (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:30:21 PM EST
    $28,500 is obscene. Really.  With the economy tanking and people worrying, I think it is no brainier that if that gets out, people will be really angry.

    He-l, I make good money but I get nervous with where this economy might go. In addition, this is supposed to be the Democratic Party with concerns for people and their pocketbooks. Right?

    I think that amount of money for a candidate dinner is nuts.


    You think (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:47:45 PM EST
    Mayfair Fowler will manage to find her way into one of these events?



    You think Obama would be raising $27M/month (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:30:06 PM EST
    for the DNC if the product being sold were party building?

    The Elephant in the Room? (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by IzikLA on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:51:02 PM EST
    Why don't we mention it...

    He sees this as Clinton state with an extremely loyal base so he doesn't think he can get it.  

    He is truly being stubborn by not putting Clinton on the ticket.  Someone needs to wake up and realize that if she was on the ticket the campaign could lock up PA, OH, MI & NJ, he won't lose any of the solid blue states and would put FL into serious play.  I also think he strengthens his chances in the West.  It's a sweep, really.  

    Why are they risking the election with their alternatives???


    Yup. The state is under the bus with (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:54:52 PM EST
    Clark and the rest of us  ;)

    Just waiting on Hill and Bill now. . . . .


    You don't think Bill is already hanging onto (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:09:24 PM EST
    the axel?

    He hasn't been asked to do anything, has he?

    That speaking spot at the convention isn't primo, or befitting our last successful 2 term Democratic president during the best decade of the last 1/2 century, and looks like a last minute concession because his handlers would not allow him to show his disdain for Bill Clinton before that nomination was sealed.


    I think your analysis is exactly right (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by AlSmith on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:21:28 PM EST
    If you are going to pick Clinton as a VP then you open an office there. Because then you have a chance.

    But if you intend to snub her, then you are on the outs with the state party. And since the Huckster will be an effective advocate for the other ticket, you dont even bother with the state.

    This is probably the clearest tea leaf on Clintons VP chance.


    OH WOW (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:24:42 PM EST
    I never thought of that.  If that theory doesn't put the notion of HRC not being VP nothing will.

    Very astute observation my friend!


    I know I made that argument (none / 0) (#64)
    by IzikLA on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:22:44 PM EST
    But you CAN see it from another more positive perspective as well...

    Most days I believe he will never pick Clinton but sometimes I think this is all an elaborate fake-out for the greatest media event ever when he announces Clinton as his running mate...

    You could also look at it this way -- if he is going to pick Clinton then he probably does not need to advertise now.  He'd probably have Arkansas locked down from that moment and at the very least, that is the moment he would start advertising there, not now...

    Well, my first assessment is probably more on the money, but there you have it : )


    You think the person who is his VP choice (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:12:52 PM EST
    is going to feel honored and special when the announcement goes to the public via text message to a bunch of young people?

    College back in session in any part of the country, yet?

    Is his most loyal demograhic much into the faith-based stuff?


    At some level you have to feel that he (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:18:27 PM EST
    has no intentions of winning, because that is what it seems like.  And don't you love the way they are allowing him to make an end run around how much money can be given to a campaign.  The entire debacle is off-putting and it makes me glad that people are waking up to the fact that obama is just a big ole bag of nothing when it comes to helping America...just my opinion.

    I couldn't agree more (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:08:33 PM EST
    Arkansas would, I think, be hospitable to Obama, especially considering the HORRIBLE assasination of its state chair (um, did the DNC forget about that?)

    A call to political arms should/would be, "Let's all work hard to have AR go Dem for Bill Gwatney and all his hard work!"


    South Dakota (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:22:17 PM EST
    should be an interesting experiment for the super D's to consider come the convention.  The media ALL but called South Dakota for Obama.  But lost it to HRC.  

    BHO also had the aid of Tom Daschle.  No help there at all.   Like Jeralyn said, he went there.  I would BET his thinking was that Daschle was going to help him win there.  Apparently it backfired.


    Honestly, no (2.00 / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:09:59 PM EST
    His job is to win, not tilt at future windmills.

    I don't want him in Idaho, Georgia, or Arkansas.


    Not to worry (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:04:15 PM EST
    the Republican majorities in those states couldn't agree with you more.

    Did you text that message to him? (none / 0) (#83)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:15:28 PM EST
    I'm sure he's listening.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by tek on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:29:32 PM EST
    this is indicative of his policy plan.  He only cares about AAs and the youth.

    Another state Hillary would help him win. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:08:40 PM EST
    He is also not contesting Tennessee. I know he has no chance here but he really isn't running a 50 state strategy. And, with his campaign controlling all the money to state candidates, these states will get short changed.

    I believe I read somewhere (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:13:51 PM EST
    that Obama was seriously studying Reagan's war strategy in Grenada so he would be prepared to answer military strategy questions in the presidential debates -- so he doesn't have time to work on getting voters in Arkansas.  

    Aside from that, isn't Arkansas rural and white?  

    ...and Appalachian? (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:26:43 PM EST
    I believe a certain blogger thinks that "Appalachian" voters won't vote for Obama.

    I heard the (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:45:45 PM EST
    Appalachians are located throughout the 57 states we have in this country. Even Puerto Rico has a stretch of the mighty mountains./snark

    Reagan's war strategy in Grenada? Is that a joke? (none / 0) (#73)
    by jawbone on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:25:35 PM EST
    Gotta be. Right?

    Gotta be. Pretty hillarious one too. (none / 0) (#75)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:33:36 PM EST
    Arkansas would require (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:17:07 PM EST
    "retail politics."  I thought someone said that Obama didn't like to do "retail politics."  He prefers to give speeches to big crowds so perhaps he views Arkansas as a lost cause to him?  

    I agree that it's not good strategy to ignore a state with so many Democrats -- but so far, I don't really understand the Obama campaign's real strategy.  It appears they don't want to reach out to a lot of existing Democrats and would rather try to find new Democrats.  

    It's all part of the (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:47:06 PM EST
    being a "transformational" candidate. He's transforming the Dem brand into something Reagan would be proud of.

    Obama - you'd be a hero if you stepped aside (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:23:14 PM EST
    JFK was seen in the rural south as an elitist, and so he went down there, shook hands, and asked for their votes. It may have been LBJ that pulled him across the finish line, but it helped that people saw JFK's humility in going to a place in which he wasn't already popular.

    Obama should just agree to be Hillary's veep. I know it's an outrageous request that he do this, but he owes it to the party to either campaign like he wants our votes or hand the nomination to somebody who will. He would go down in history has a ginormous hero if he stepped aside.

    It's voters are older and less educated? (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Bluesage on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:23:27 PM EST
    I live in Arkansas and would take some exception with that description of the voters here.  The Univ. of Ark, Ark Tech Univ., Univ. of Central Ar, U of A Little Rock and the University of Arkansas Medical Sciences (UAMS) where my granddaughter goes to school are all very good schools and have turned out many highly educated voters in AR.  I get so tired of people who insist on describing all southerners as poor and ignorant.  I admit that we may not have the most progressive elected Democratic officials in this state but Hillary would have had a landslide win here.  I'm not so sure Obama coming here would make much difference but not because we don't have enough black folks but because people here tend to not be too impressed with arrogance and don't drink much kool-aid.  In other words, people here think for themselves.  We have a very good Democratic Governor here now.  He's doing a pretty good job of cleaning up after Huckleberry.

    Yeah no kidding (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:17:16 PM EST
    I hate being considered a down-market, uneducated Southerner just because I live in Texas.

    There was ALL this talk that Boyd Richie, the Dem state chair, was going to attempt to put TX in play for Obama.  Man, that's not Kool Aid, that's LSD, because they are TRIPPIN'!

    Places like Austin, Dallas and the Rio Grande Valley are pretty strong bastions of Dem voters (Dallas has arrived late but they are AWESOMELY organized there thanks to the Stonewall Dems), but the state will NEVER go Obama.  When I look at the numbers from the primary here, when you add all the votes both candidates received, it barely is HALF of what Bush43 got in 2004.  So TX, like other states listed here, is not in play.

    Our beloved Ann Richards begged Bill Clinton back in 1992 to "not write off Texas".  Bill came and gave Bush41 a good run for his money.  But if the powerhouses of Ann Richards and Bill Clinton couldn't deliver TX, I just don't know who could.


    hey any state that gave us bill clinton (none / 0) (#92)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:21:51 AM EST
    has to be proud and have any number of smart residents. clark is from there also. what a deal!

    Didn't Clark do well in Arkansas too? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:27:55 PM EST

    Of course, Clark is from Arkansas (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:09:31 PM EST
    Boy (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:34:20 PM EST
    That Obama sure is some brilliant "strategerist." that knows how to blow off some opportunities doesn't he?

    Cripes, I wish I knew what the party was thinkin(or if they even ARE thinkin'?)


    50 State Strategy! (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by rjarnold on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:28:09 PM EST

    more and more it looks like the "I'll go (none / 0) (#65)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:23:17 PM EST
    where there are more AA's and I think I can win"
    strategy....talk about cutting off one's nose to spite their face.

    Interesting anecdote (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:51:00 PM EST
    that ends the article...it isn't right that Obama is suspected of being Muslim by quite a few in this country, but maybe if he did more smaller break-bread type of events, he could put down roots in the small towns he'll need to help him win.  

    If I were on Team Obama, I would be looking at Hillary's schedule from March - May and say, wow, this is totally different from what we do, and seems to have worked.  Let's give it a shot.  Coming into the fall with a new style could be good.  Ending the fall with a new style would be bad.

    Another potential problem (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:51:23 PM EST
    Obama shouldn't take black peoples' votes for granted.

    There was a video posted of a confrontation in a rally in Florida.
    A black man angrily asked Obama why he was not addressing issues of concern to the black community.

    Obama's answer was, to me, unconvincing and shallow.

    Not part of the New Coalition per (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:02:57 PM EST
    Donna Brazile.  As you can see, Arkansas=Clinton, and we will have NONE of that in our BRAND SPANKING NEW Democratic Party.

    I think it would be political suicide to ignore ANY state in the union.  Is Obama gonna win Idaho and Utah.  No, but he can at least acknowledge that there are Dems in that state who would work for him regardless.

    Places like AR and WV who have gone Dem with the right Dem are and should not be written off.  This so called "50 State" strategy is a joke.

    Shame on you Governor Dean.  And shame on you, too Senator Obama!

    Exactly what I thought, txpolitico67! (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by bridget on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:35:02 PM EST
    just wrote my own comments below re Arkansas=Clinton and the non-existing 50 state strategy Dean and Obama seem to be so proud of ... still.

    the new coalition? who is in it? (none / 0) (#93)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:23:13 AM EST
    every group i can think of is under the bus.

    So basically (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Nadai on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:16:08 PM EST
    if you're not already supporting Obama, he really has no time for you.  Good to know.

    "What's up with this?" The Answer is: (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by bridget on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:30:35 PM EST
    B i l l  C l i n t o n

    H i l l a r y  C l i n t o n

    Any other state not visited since 2006 I would have said also "What"s up with that?"

    But since its Arkansas.
    That was the first thing coming to mind when I read it just now. I guess these days it comes naturally. Just like that.

    I mean, he couldn't squeeze in one little itty bitty visit to Arkansas? Not even to fill the tank of the Obamaplane ;-)

    What other states did he ignore in this election aside from the Clinton state?

    P.S. What about the 50 state strategy Obama and Dean are always talking about? Obama mentioned it in the recent campaign "send money" letter he sent I am pretty sure he did.

    WV (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:35:38 PM EST
    I guess having Byrd and Rockefeller was all that mattered. After all, it IS the Appalachians.

    Not for nothing, but what is up with obama (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:25:41 PM EST
    using black envelopes to send out his pleas for money, or for anything for that matter.  Should I be suspicious, should I be scared...:)  I just find it odd imo.

    Just checked the Obama letter ... (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by bridget on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:06:26 PM EST
    and the sentence starts as follows: "Building on this winning 50-state strategy, I am working with the Democratic Party to launch a groundbreaking effort called the Campaign for Change."

    Well - I wrote the whole sentence after all. Cause it was so exciting ;-)

    I can't quite remember how the envelope looked like cause I threw it away already after using it for note paper. But there will be more for sure and I'll be looking for the black color :-)


    The return address is sen. b.obama, (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:28:25 PM EST
    obama for America, Chicago, IL

    My Obama letter had the DNC, Washington as (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by bridget on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:14:44 PM EST
    return address

    diff. kind of correspondence, I guess. More party oriented request for money?
    I haven't received the black letter from Obama, Chicago, yet. I'm sure it will come soon ;-)


    Arkansas (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Miri on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:48:08 PM EST
    I remember seeing a poll that showed Hillary beating all republican candidates in Arkansas, including Huckabee.

    Oh, well.

    The Messiah is spending money in states like George. He is not going to win Georgia. I don't care how much money he spends.

    This is what is needed, in Appalachia, everywhere (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by DFLer on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:16:34 AM EST
    I'm sure this article has been referenced elsewhere on TL, but bears repeating for this discussion:

    Seeing Tougher Race, Allies Ask Obama to Make `Hope' Specific


    These Democrats -- 15 governors, members of Congress and state party leaders -- say Mr. Obama has yet to convert his popularity among many Americans into solutions to crucial electoral challenges: showing ownership of an issue, like economic stewardship or national security; winning over supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton; and minimizing his race and experience level as concerns for voters.

    "I particularly hope he strengthens his economic message -- even Senator Obama can speak more clearly and specifically about the kitchen-table, bread-and-butter issues like high energy costs," said Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio. "It's fine to tell people about hope and change, but you have to have plenty of concrete, pragmatic ideas that bring hope and change to life."

    Or, in the blunter words of Gov. Phil Bredesen, Democrat of Tennessee: "Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart about how he would improve their lives."

    - in other words, more "®etail politics"

    if these Democrat Leaders (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:45:24 PM EST
    are speaking publicly about how Obama needs to change his campaign tactics in order to win, the internal polling must be abysmal and they must be absolutely sh*tting themselves with the suddenly dawning realization that Obama could actually LOSE this thing in November.

    I also wouldn't be surprised if there are some very concerned SDs who have told Dean and Brazile to take a flying leap, have reconciled themselves to losing future money from Nancy's PAC and have switched back to Hillary under the radar.

    But, again, if Dems are speaking to the NY Times about this, the internal polls must be really, really, R-E-A-L-L-Y bad.


    The Clintons should campaign hard for Obama (1.50 / 2) (#29)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:59:49 PM EST
    in Arkansas.  They should accept it as their divine calling.  If they delivered Arkansas to Obama that would be absolute proof of their sacrifice to the party and the country.

    the Clintons would campaign hard (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:10:38 PM EST
    for Obama in Arkansas. A little hard to do though if he doesn't even have an office there with staffers.

    I know (none / 0) (#39)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:14:03 PM EST
    ... but Bill & Hillary could do it without even breaking a sweat.

    It's a divine calling (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Nadai on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:15:34 PM EST
    when God tells you to do something, not when Obama does.

    It's a divine calling when you do it (2.00 / 1) (#43)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:17:09 PM EST
    out of your own sense of duty regardless of Obama's own weaknesses.

    BTW, I am not speaking literally.


    Clintons need to prove themselfs??? (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by D Jessup on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:16:35 PM EST
    Yeah!  Right!  If he Obama looses, it will be the Clintons fault.  I already blame them for the hot weather and drought we are having in Texas.

    It's not fair (2.00 / 0) (#45)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:18:22 PM EST
    but that's the way it is for Hillary's future presidential aspirations.

    Y'know what? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:17:57 PM EST
    It doesn't...not really. She's already done a lot of glad handing for him. Telling her that she must do more to "prove her loyalty" is just expecting her to do the "extra mile" thing for the "good of the cause"...

    Not having an office is Arkansas pretty much says "Fifty states...except Arkansas."


    I don't mean it like that at all (none / 0) (#74)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:32:59 PM EST
    I personally don't think Hillary has to prove her loyalty.  It's just the basic CV that if Obama loses her liability will be anything that others could and will use against her as not working hard enough, splitting the party, etc.  For a recent example, Bill not saying that he's qualified to be president.  But if they won Arkansas for Obama without even having an office there.  No one could question that.  She'd be above reproach from anyone.  Only the Democrats could lose this election and I'm beginning to think they will.  Of course, it will be Obama's fault.  But Hillary can't let it look like it was her fault too.  And she won't.  I wish more of my fellow Hillary supporters would adopt her attitude about this instead of still campaigning against Obama and doing McCain's work for him.

    Frankly... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by kredwyn on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:44:21 AM EST
    I think he's doing himself in. He pretty much lost me (I left the Dem Party) at the FISA capitulation.

    I wasn't an HRC supporter during the primaries, but the ones I know are justifiably pissed off by the maneuverings that went on inside the party. They aren't just pissed about the outcome, they're watching a party they've been part of...in the words of my mother..."railroading her."

    CDS was a wake up call for many Dems who never realized that such a thing existed within the Dem Party. And they are seriously disenchanted.

    My mother has voted Dem in every presidential election since she first voted for Kennedy. Right now? It's a toss up between McCain, Nader, and the couch. And she votes in Florida.

    Part of a real 50 state strategy means putting up a store front in Arkansas.


    I agree with you and ... (none / 0) (#101)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:42:01 PM EST
    ... I was a Hillary supporter in the primaries, but I now agree with her support for Obama.

    by the time hillary runs and wins, obama (none / 0) (#95)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:28:44 AM EST
    won't be a consideration or concern for anyone.

    Excuse me? (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Bluesage on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:20:38 PM EST
    If there is anybody on the planet that owes nothing to this "new" and definately "not improved" Democratic Party, it is Bill and Hillary Clinton.  It is a disgrace the way they were treated by the Democratic Party.  Pelosi, Dean and Brazille, etc. can go to Hell as far as many of us real life-long Democrats are concerned.

    Well, I hope you enjoy President McCain (2.00 / 1) (#69)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:01:13 PM EST
    robrect - I would rather (none / 0) (#76)
    by Bluesage on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:36:28 PM EST
    Have the devil I know with a strong Democratic Congress than the devil I'm suspicious of and a boot-licking Democratic Congress.  We can survive four years of McCrazy if we have to and just maybe the DNC will get their heads out of Obama's butt long enough to rebuild the party they destroyed in this primary.

    Strong Democratic Congress??? (none / 0) (#77)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:40:05 PM EST
    Yes robrect! (none / 0) (#80)
    by Bluesage on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:07:56 PM EST
    I plan to work very hard and believe we will see great gains in our majorities in the Congress.  It will then be up to us to stay involved and drag them, screaming if necessary, to a point where they actually begin to work for us again.  I personally think that would be achieved a little easier with a McCrazy presidency rather than having a bunch of Obama sycophants who will bow to his every whim rather than do the jobs they were sent to do.  I want my damn party back and I want those we send to WA to work for us.  That will take committment and a lot of hard work on our part.

    McCrazy, I like that one, anyway (none / 0) (#86)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:25:34 PM EST
    Unfortunately, I think Congress only works under the leadership of a good executive.  I know that's not what the framers had in mind but I think that's become the reality.  But I hope you can prove me wrong.

    Actually, (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Bluesage on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:46:13 PM EST
    A strong Senate Leader, oh, like possibly Hillary Clinton, would be a very strong leader and could make great strides in firming up those Senate spines.  Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can be booted to the curb and take their strongly worded letters with them.  We need new leadership.

    We'll hope for the best (none / 0) (#94)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:25:20 AM EST
    Paradoxically, I think Hillary will be a stronger leader in the Senate because of her loss in the primaries.  She became a much better campaigner and really found her spontaneous populist voice in Ohio and Pennsylvania.  She has the potential to take up the mantle of Ted Kennedy.  She could actually be more effective nationally than Kennedy's been.  She started to remind me of the strong and engaging enthusiasm of someone like Hubert Humphrey.  I'll hope for the best, but I still think we'd be better off with presidency as well.  I wouldn't expect Senator Clinton to cow tow to President Obama.

    campaigning in Arkansas for Obama (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by kelsweet on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:06:34 AM EST
    Speaking for me only, i think that Obama blew it with a lot of Arkansans with the way he treated the Clinton's during the primaries. Whether they campaign there or not, I think that ship has sailed.
    I am an Arkansan and yes there are plenty of intelligent people in and from Arkansas. It peeves me to no end when people look at us as though we are all idiot, backward, barefooted inbreds. I would like to add that Arkansas is the only state is self sufficient and could survive if cut off from the rest of the world, so put that in your proverbial "corncob" pipe and smoke it.

    The Mensa team from Arkansas (none / 0) (#105)
    by splashy on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:25:49 PM EST
    Has won Culture Quest several times in the last few years, so that belies the idea that there are no intelligent people here. For those that don't know what Mensa is, or the Culture Quest is, here is a link.

    Hillary (none / 0) (#3)
    by Little Fish on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:08:48 PM EST
    Could putting Hillary on the ticket bring Arkansas?

    Yup, the Clinton/____ ticket. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:25:29 PM EST
    And Hillary knows how to woo those voters.

    Yea! (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Bluesage on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:16:36 PM EST
    Arkansas still loves the Big Dog and Hillary.  She would get every Democratic vote in this state and probably many of the Republican votes.  Obama is making a big mistake not coming here with Hillary.  Many now just think she should tell him to take a hike and wish him luck.

    You sure she didn't tell him just that (none / 0) (#85)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:23:57 PM EST
    two months ago?

    Absolutely! (none / 0) (#104)
    by splashy on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:13:38 PM EST
    I live here, and it would definitely go for a ticket with Clinton on it. Without Clinton, it most certainly goes for McCain.

    Obama should ignore rural Southern states. (none / 0) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:20:21 PM EST
    He can't win, so why waste time and money? Ohio, Ohio, Ohio.

    Ohio isn't polling so well either. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:28:24 PM EST
    I hope Obama's vacation gets him well rested because he has a lot of work ahead of him.

    He most likely won't win Ohio (none / 0) (#54)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:45:49 PM EST
    or PA.  Same as IN....those small rural towns.

    However, my sister in SW Pa says that people are talking about voting for him as is my niece in Ohio.  She's well educated, etc, ect and has read the Audacity of Hope and she has seen the light. Never has been interested an iota in politics and only voted if it impacted her locally.

    Rendell will help him in Pa too. I he wins in Pa, it will be against Bush. I still don't think he will carry the state.


    Ridge (none / 0) (#79)
    by Miri on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:56:49 PM EST
    If McCain picks Tom Ridge as VP he has a very good chance of winning Penn.

    Even without Ridge McCain could win Penn.


    But he is courting evangelicals so.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:42:46 PM EST
    ... isn't the bible belt in the south?

    Snubbing Arkansas (none / 0) (#97)
    by glennmcgahee on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:54:27 AM EST
    Is viral. It makes Obama look like the elitist he's being portrayed as by McCain. That little poor state couldn't afford the 23,000 fundraisers. Thats why he doesn't bother. But, its that same state and others like it that are hurting the most from the economic downturn. It seems Obama couldn't care less about the Americans in rural areas period. They are alot more influential than he realizes. They are also a more devoted voter. They will vote, just not for Obama if he doesn't pay them any attention or address their concerns.